5 ms·

This is exactly why I don't use any GNU code in any of my projects. I am just sick of people claiming it is "free" when it's actually a lure to get companies t

This is exactly why I don't use any GNU code in any of my projects. I am just sick of people claiming it is "free" when it's actually a lure to get companies to use the code for free and then get bitten in the ass in the end by having to release proprietary code. Why is it that whenever I bring up this point, the words "theft" and "stealing" are used by many. However, when we are talking about copyright infringement, I am instantly corrected when I try to use those words to describe essentially the exact same practice?? (people here have even said it is their 'right' to freely copy copyrighted material). "If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?" So, it's not about giving and happiness anymore and happiness is it? Giving out software for free and then getting angry and going after someone in court when they don't use it to your liking is not freedom in my mind. I release all of my software under the BSD license. It's true freedom because I don't care what you do with it. It's a true unselfish act. The GNU is just Stallman's attempt to destroy the commercial software industry, tie up our courts with ridiculous GNU violations, and essentially socialize it (a few years back, he had goals of the GNU and one of them is to have a 'compliance officer' mandated by the government in each company). I'm glad most of these attempts have failed.

Kalium 12y ago
GNU licenses don't exist to be "lures". They exist to make it difficult to be parasitic to the open source world. Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. He's out to ensure freedom of computing for all. If commercial software can't function without taking away freedom, then that's the problem of those business models.
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  Eh, what? Because 'free software with commercial support offering' is not 'commercial software. Your claim is "Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. If commercial software can't function without being free, then that's its problem" - where one is the very exact opposite of the other. "He doesn't want to kill it. But if it can't survive without being something it's inherently the opposite of, well, that's not us seeking its death, but rather 'a problem of their business model'." Hmm.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Implicit is that I believe commercial software can exist while still being free.
    - FireBeyond 12y ago
      How so? Commercial -support-, perhaps. Butt in not sure how offering to sell software that is free I'd any business model. And that's my point, Stallman absolutely DOES want to kill commercial software (as is this right)
      - Kalium 12y ago
        I consider commercial support a business model for commercial software. Commercial software does not have to mean non-free proprietary software.
      - lazylizard 12y ago
        but what do redhat,suse, joyent, docker sell?
      - snuxoll 12y ago
        If Stallman wanted to kill commercial software he would have put wording into the GPL to prevent its use in commercial products. As it stands I can still use the GPL on a commercial product, of course it is a rather odd choice since the user is free to take the work and redistribute it, which is why going the commercial support route is much more typical.
palebluedot 12y ago
This is exactly why I don't use any GNU code in any of my projects. I am just sick of people claiming it is "free" when it's actually a lure to get companies to use the code for free and then get bitten in the ass in the end by having to release proprietary code. Why is it that whenever I bring up this point, the words "theft" and "stealing" are used by many. I should point out, that so far you are the only one in this conversation to use the word "theft", and the word "steal[ing]" was only used by one other commenter (who was not replying to you at all). (At least, this is true as of the 178 comment mark). All software licenses at their core rely on some sort of copyright, including the GPL as well as proprietary licenses. This is at the heart, I believe, of what the parent poster meant by "Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?". And as someone who both uses, and creates GPL code - let me assure you, it is most definitely not a "lure" to get companies to use it and then "release proprietary code". So, it's not about giving and happiness anymore and happiness is it? Giving out software for free and then getting angry and going after someone in court when they don't use it to your liking is not freedom in my mind. I release all of my software under the BSD license. It's true freedom because I don't care what you do with it. It's a true unselfish act. I don't think the parent post was saying it was all about giving and happiness. Nor do I, at least not directly. People spent time, money, etc.. creating code to release under a specific license. The license is clear, and well-known. It is not unreasonable to request that people respect the license when using the code. The reason why they chose the license isn't all that relevant, to be honest, when it comes to the validity of it. It is clear that you don't like or respect the GPL very much; that is fine, and the appropriate option is the one you espoused: don't use it. I'm not sure I understand all your hostility, however.
nightcracker 12y ago
Stallman's ideology is that all software is open and modifiable by users. A viral license like GPL is best at accomplishing that. It gives full freedom to those adhering to the ideal, and locks out opponents of it.

Kalium 12y ago

GNU licenses don't exist to be "lures". They exist to make it difficult to be parasitic to the open source world. Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. He's out to ensure freedom of computing for all. If commercial software can't function without taking away freedom, then that's the problem of those business models.

FireBeyond 12y ago
Eh, what? Because 'free software with commercial support offering' is not 'commercial software. Your claim is "Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. If commercial software can't function without being free, then that's its problem" - where one is the very exact opposite of the other. "He doesn't want to kill it. But if it can't survive without being something it's inherently the opposite of, well, that's not us seeking its death, but rather 'a problem of their business model'." Hmm.
- Kalium 12y ago
  Implicit is that I believe commercial software can exist while still being free.
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    How so? Commercial -support-, perhaps. Butt in not sure how offering to sell software that is free I'd any business model. And that's my point, Stallman absolutely DOES want to kill commercial software (as is this right)
    - Kalium 12y ago
      I consider commercial support a business model for commercial software. Commercial software does not have to mean non-free proprietary software.
    - lazylizard 12y ago
      but what do redhat,suse, joyent, docker sell?
    - snuxoll 12y ago
      If Stallman wanted to kill commercial software he would have put wording into the GPL to prevent its use in commercial products. As it stands I can still use the GPL on a commercial product, of course it is a rather odd choice since the user is free to take the work and redistribute it, which is why going the commercial support route is much more typical.

palebluedot 12y ago

This is exactly why I don't use any GNU code in any of my projects. I am just sick of people claiming it is "free" when it's actually a lure to get companies to use the code for free and then get bitten in the ass in the end by having to release proprietary code. Why is it that whenever I bring up this point, the words "theft" and "stealing" are used by many. I should point out, that so far you are the only one in this conversation to use the word "theft", and the word "steal[ing]" was only used by one other commenter (who was not replying to you at all). (At least, this is true as of the 178 comment mark). All software licenses at their core rely on some sort of copyright, including the GPL as well as proprietary licenses. This is at the heart, I believe, of what the parent poster meant by "Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?". And as someone who both uses, and creates GPL code - let me assure you, it is most definitely not a "lure" to get companies to use it and then "release proprietary code". So, it's not about giving and happiness anymore and happiness is it? Giving out software for free and then getting angry and going after someone in court when they don't use it to your liking is not freedom in my mind. I release all of my software under the BSD license. It's true freedom because I don't care what you do with it. It's a true unselfish act. I don't think the parent post was saying it was all about giving and happiness. Nor do I, at least not directly. People spent time, money, etc.. creating code to release under a specific license. The license is clear, and well-known. It is not unreasonable to request that people respect the license when using the code. The reason why they chose the license isn't all that relevant, to be honest, when it comes to the validity of it. It is clear that you don't like or respect the GPL very much; that is fine, and the appropriate option is the one you espoused: don't use it. I'm not sure I understand all your hostility, however.

nightcracker 12y ago

Stallman's ideology is that all software is open and modifiable by users. A viral license like GPL is best at accomplishing that. It gives full freedom to those adhering to the ideal, and locks out opponents of it.